Monday, January 07, 2013

Worst argument ever

If you vote “Yes” to the proposed same-sex marriage bill, you will ...declare your constituents who believe that marriage is a union of one man and one woman to be bigots and discriminators....from the Thomas More Society's open letter to Illinois legislators (via Capitol Fax)

From a side marinating in the stench of rotting, decaying red herrings and infected with paranoid slippery-slopism, here we find the absolute stupidest argument against gay marriage. Behold.

Posted at 03:15:13 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Right. It wasn't the practice of slavery that made slave holders bigots. It was only when slavery was ended that they were *branded* (unfairly, of course) as bigots.

[Right. It wasn't the practice of slavery that made slave holders bigots. It was only when slavery was ended that they were *branded* (unfairly, of course) as bigots.Got it.]

The same irony can be applied to the anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism we find on CoS.

But some may retort in outrage by saying "there is no anti-Semitism and no anti-Catholicism on CoS." But then I sur-retort by asking "is there really homophobia or it merely an honest difference of opinion?"

I won't, for the moment, speak to anti-Catholicism, but as far as anti-Semitism, there is a vast difference between saying "Jews are evil" or "Jews should die" or whatever similar nonsense, vs. making criticisms of Israel's behavior as an aggressive, belligerent nation. I don't frankly care that Israel is a Jewish country (okay, well, I do have issues with theocracies in general, but since I don't have to live there, I don't personally care, and it's irrelevant to any discussion of their foreign policy). What I care about is the fact that Israel is illegally and aggressively occupying Palestine and the fact that much of the most belligerent U.S. foreign policy is in direct support of Israel's belligerency. I suppose you could accuse me of anti-Israel-ism (if criticizing aggressiveness is the same as being anti-the aggressor), but not anti-Semitism.

While I don't agree with everything Dienne says specifically about Israeli policy, her broader point is accurate.

We need to be able to distinguish between criticism of a person or organization's specific actions/opinions and broad criticism/slander of a person/organization based on race, religion, or other general prejudice.

As I said in a prior post, it would be nice if we all could demostrate a more balance approach to our commentary, but I don't see it as an obligation. For a newspaper columnist (which needs to be distinguished from other journalism), picking a side and staying on it is almost a requirement.

JerryB, By the way, contrary to the John Kass "Hopium" view of Obama supporters, many of us were equally disgusted by Obama's views prior to his conversion. Unfortunately, he was still the lessor of two evils on the topic.

I am reluctant to apply the words “anti-Semitism” and “racism” and “homophobia” to both the vicious stuff and the mild stuff – primarily because it cheapens the charge.

Since you are guilty of only the “mild stuff” I will not apply the term “anti-Semite” to you.

Israel has been under siege from its inception. Israelis are literally fighting for their lives.

Israel and Israelis are only belligerent and aggressive in the sense of those defending themselves from destruction are. They are not needlessly belligerent nor needless aggressive towards those sworn to destroy them. In fact their restraint is extraordinary.

[We need to be able to distinguish between criticism of a person or organization's specific actions/opinions and broad criticism/slander of a person/organization based on race, religion, or other general prejudice.]

And yet Zorn posts –

[From a side marinating in the stench of rotting, decaying red herrings and infected with paranoid slippery-slopism, here we find the absolute stupidest argument against gay marriage. Behold.]

And let’s not pat Zorn on the back for being “Oh so clever” by saying he is merely criticizing the “argument” and not the “people” making the argument. He does refer to that “side” and their “marinating."

Fair point and I've said before that Eric's tone undermines his arguments, but it also depends on how you choose to interpret Eric's reference to the other "side". Perhaps I'm giving him to much credit, but I interpret it as the aggregate group of people from different backgrounds that would stiffle the rights of this minority group due to their own prejudice, not a particular religion as a whole or all people on the entire anti-marriage side.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I do believe the constitutionalists oppose to gay marriage like GregJ are a minority voice in the anti-marriage "side". If it weren't, we probably would have eliminated all marriage (replaced by civil unions) by now.

Speaking of human rights, Joseph Finn, the Thomas More Society took the baby-killers at NOW to the Supreme Court and won the last two out of three (NOW v. Scheidler). Not that you've ever given a damn about an innocent unborn child's right to life.

But boy do you get on your stump when it comes to homosexual marriage. I admire a guy who has his priorities straight. Or non-straight, as the case may be.

This is so simple, if two people wish to be in a union or marriage, why can we not let them? Can some one come up with one (legitimate) reason or tell us how this concept would effect them in a negitive way?
It is time to move forward.

"This is so simple, if two people wish to be in a union or marriage, why can we not let them? Can some one come up with one (legitimate) reason or tell us how this concept would effect them in a negitive way?"

Substitute any whole number greater than two into your question and then let me know what your answer is?

I'm okay with expanding the term "marriage" to gays, though I think the better idea is to remove marriage completely from government use and reserve it as a religious sacrament. What I don't want to see happen is a demand that adoption or artificial insemination costs for gay couples (or any one else for that matter) be borne by taxpayers. I just think the whole argument has less to do with equality (civil unions can satisfy the financial issues) and more to do with seeking an endorsement.

The Thomas More Society was forged out of necessity in 1997 in order to continue defending the historic N.O.W. v. Scheidler case. This nationwide class action lawsuit brought by the National Organization for Women against prominent pro-life leader Joseph Scheidler (among others) was a transparent attempt to gag pro-life activism at abortion clinics nationally through the blatant misuse of federal antitrust and racketeering statutes. Having decisively prevailed in N.O.W. v. Scheidler in the U.S. Supreme Court, 8-1 (2003) and 8-0 (2006), the Thomas More Society continues to litigate cutting-edge cases including (etc.)

TMS was on the last two briefs for sure and I think on the first as well; at the trial level, the handling lawyer TMS, Tom Brejcha, was at a different firm and it took some time for the case to wind up at the Court.

So, anyway, you don't know what you are talking about. Let's see if you can pass the MCN integrity test and admit that you got it wrong. I promise I'll respect you even more in the morning.

An unborn baby is a separate entity from its mother. Nice twisting of words there. Of course, if the mother is going to let it be born, it's a baby, if not, it's, well, garbage, I guess, because that's were it ends up.

When you figure out how two men or two women can impregnate each other, then we can start talking about "equal rights". Until then, you live in a fantasy in which homosexual marriage has a stronger basis in reality than polygamous ones. Which it doesn't.

This is what I was raised with and what I believe, it's pretty simple.

In Catholic belief, " marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love and procreation""What are called' same sex unions," because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative, cannot be given the status of the sacrament of marriage ".

So if that belief is "From a side marinating in the stench of rotting, decaying red herrings and infected with paranoid slippery-slopism.... " so be it.

"marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love and procreation"

That's great; you and your Church are free to believe and insist on this exclusive union within your faith. You cannot demand the secular government adhere by your religious rules concerning those outside of your faith, or within it if they choose to take a different path. You can excommunicate them.

No, I can demand that. You and anyone else are free to reject it. Just as Finn can say that is not a life I can most certainly disagree and from a religious point of view informing my values and opinion I can work to ban abortion.

I wasn't singling anyone on this board out. I don't know you except by your posts and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your position is based on an intellectual argument that I disagree with.

However, I'm not willing to give that benefit of the doubt to everyone that feels a religious based argument shields them from accusations of prejudice. If a person believes that homosexuals will "burn in hell" even if their the most noble person on the planet, they are prejudiced. Religious doctrine and prejudice aren't mutually exclusive.

Barry3, at the risk of speaking for Eric, the red herring or slippery slope that he's referring to is probably your ridiculous polygamy strawman. I've already explained the logic but you're impervious to logic; so I'm not going to bother again.

The facts are currently that marriage laws in the state of Illinois discriminate based upon gender, number, and family relationship.

If you want marriage equality, then you best have a very logical and good reason why you are only want to lift the discrimination on only the genders involved in the marriage and not the number of people involved in the marriage. No slippery slope, just calling out the gay marriage supporters for calling this marriage equality because it is not.

The two cases under Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, a completely different set of cases though with similar themes, were decided in 2003 & 2006. Sorry that the Thomas More Society, supposedly a legal advocacy society, can't be bothered to cite the very cases they worked on correctly.

"When you figure out how two men or two women can impregnate each other, then we can start talking about "equal rights". Until then, you live in a fantasy in which homosexual marriage has a stronger basis in reality than polygamous ones. Which it doesn't."

Artificial insemination and surrogate pregnancy, easy. Ain't modern medicine grand? If your argument against equal rights for humans is whether or not they can get pregnant in a marriage....well, I think you're grasping at straws, just like everyone else against equal rights.

Joseph J Finn, you have your head so far up your a$$ that it will be years before you see the sun again.

The 1994 case and the three count 'em three Supreme Court cases are all the same case. Do you understand tha? The SAME CASES.

To be crystal clear, the USSCt cases were appeals of the 1994 trial verdict. I am extremely familiar with these matters and I know what I'm talking about, especially since I have been personally acquainted with Tom Brejcha for over twenty years since he was at Abramson & Fox in the 80s and early 90s.

I wish you had the guts to admit the you eff'd this up. This really shows a dramatic lack of integrity on your part. I mean, really. You're unbelievable.

In the meantime, here's some advice on this subject: either do some real research and then admit you were wrong, or STFU.

As far as your last paragraph, you poor, deluded fellow you. How exactly can a man impregnate another man? And how can a woman impregnate another one? Can you explain that to me?

@ChrisH: Speaking only as to the RCC, RCC teaching does NOT repeat NOT state that homosexuals are going to hell. Hence, by your standard, Catholics do not meet your test of prejudice.

However,to expand on the subject, RCC teaching is very clear that anyone with an unabsolved mortal sin on their souls WILL go to hell.

Now, there are an awful lot of mortal sins out there, and some of them won't make a lot of sense to non-Catholics.

However, what is unquestioned teaching is that anyone who has committed the an unabsolved sin of fornication or adultery WILL go to hell, whether the nature of the sin was heterosexual or homosexual. There is no gender discrimination in this matter. Period.

As I have said many times, and demonstrated such, polygamy argument is NOT a slipperly slope merely because you and Eric say it is, and polygamy historically has been a relationship accepted and legally protected by human societies. Homosexual "marriages" have not been.

I know that this is an argument you side desperately wants to ignore, but saying it's so doesn't make it so. Polygamy is NOT a radical redefinition of marriage. Homosexual marriage IS a radical redefinition. Those are the facts, ma'am.

@Joseph J Finn: To be a little merciful, this is a matter which demonstrates that Wikipedia is not fully reliable, your and other views to the contrary, and shows that a little independent research can be useful.

The statement in your cite, "Not to be confused with the 2003 and 2006 cases both named Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (disambiguation)" is simply incorrect. They were the same case that went to the Court on different issues. The final decision in the 2006 case reversed the below judgments including the trial verdict, which occurred after the 1994 decision.

Whoever wrote that got it completely wrong.

Moreover, the same cite says "The case was superseded by Scheidler v. National Organization for Women in 2003", so the cite contradicts itself.

That cite gives a more complete description of the facts, except that its assertion that the NOW plaintiffs had great legal counsel is crap in that they lost, and twice, at the Supreme Court, and moreover made bad law for their clients, and spent millions of dollars in the process.

That's a big oops.

Hence, I recommend that you retract both of your above BS statements forthwith and post haste because you are wrong.

I wish to maintain a reasonably civil relationship with you so a simple "my bad" will suffice. Absent that, you shall feel the sting of the lash across your pitiful shoulders.

The banning of polygamy is a past redefinition of marriage that demonstrates that marriage definitions evolve. That's the worthwhile polygamy argument. You and Barry3 are ignoring my point that no one is currently advocating for polygamy. Show me some popular support for polygamy and we can debate it.

If the RCC has made a relevant, non-scriptured argument that justifies banning gay marriage, I have to concede that I missed it or just don't get it. People have a legal right to butn in hell if they so chose. Additionally, you seem to think the RCC has a monopoly on the anti-marriage advocacy.

Finally, if I were you, I wouldn't rely on any of that Wikipedia crap, which only proves that some Wikipedia contributors can't write AND don't know what the hell they are talking about. So don't believe everything you read.

So Dienne, if "Israel is illegally and aggressively occupying Palestine", why is it that its the Arabs are the ones that have destroyed Jewish synagogues, cemeteries & tombs in their territory.
You will note that no Christian or Muslim "holy places" have been destroyed by the Israelis.
Plus, when the Israelis totally pulled out of Gaza, they left behind technologically advanced greenhouses to grow fruit & vegetables for export.
The Gazans immediately wrecked them & stripped them of everything of value!

@ChrisH: You missed it. You need to do more research. There is plenty of Catholic teaching on homosexuality, homosexual conduct, and homosexual marriage out there. Most of it, like most learning, is not on the internet.

@ChrisH: In the late 19th century there was a lot of support for polygamous marriages in the Mormon confession. The Supreme Court outlawed it. I can see that support coming back if homosexual marriage is permitted.

ChrisH,
Just to clarify, so you're quite clear on the point that MCN thinks is a winner. You wrote: "If a person believes that homosexuals will 'burn in hell' even if (they're) the most noble person on the planet, they are prejudiced."

The salient part of MCN's reply was "anyone who has committed ... an unabsolved sin of fornication or adultery WILL go to hell, whether the nature of the sin was heterosexual or homosexual."

Now, according to RCC teaching, any act of sexual intercourse outside of marriage is a sin. But gays can't GET married, needless to say. Thus, any sexual act that they commit is a sin, and IS a ticket to Hell, unless they confess it. The kicker is that masturbation is a sin, also, of course. Thus, ANY type of sexual gratification (outside of a heterosexual marriage, which most gays aren't really up for) that they partake in, is a sin, and must be confessed, lest they go to Hell. So, the point is -- homosexuals won't burn in Hell just for BEING homosexuals, but they WILL burn in Hell for committing any homosexual acts which they don't repent to a priest. I'll leave it to you to decide if that is prejudiced, or not.

As MCN notes, heterosexuals engaging in sex outside of marriage are also guilty of sin. The difference is that they aren't required to go their ENTIRE LIVES without engaging in sex at all, since they can get married.

It's considered (and is) a great sacrifice that priests make when they take vows to be celibate for their entire lives. They make this choice willingly, one would hope, because they wish to serve the Church in a very special way. Gays make no choice -- the requirement of lifetime celibacy applies to them simply BECAUSE they are gay. Some, myself included, might think this isn't fair. When I queried him about it on another thread, MCN replied to me that life isn't fair, or something to that effect.

You also commented that "If the RCC has made a relevant, non-scriptured argument that justifies banning gay marriage, I have to concede that I missed it or just don't get it." To cut to the chase, the Church's argument is based on Natural Law. Which boils down to "the parts don't fit; they can't make babies naturally", as MCN likes to point out.

--Why is the legislature screwing around with this issue instead of fixing the pension crisis? They're a bunch of gutless Democrats who just want to confiscate our money and spread it around to their friends so they get reelected.

MCN, I've provided the evidence of your errors many times -- yet I don't recall you admitting you were wrong. Now you're demanding it of Finn... that would make you a hypocrite (or you should at least acknowledge that you have changed your own personal policy in this regard, based on my excellent instruction).

And you are wrong about RCC teachings on homosexuality (as on so many other things), and about "parts don't fit" -- they do, as I've pointed out to you before. You can feel free to observe same-sex adult videos if you persist in your silly doubts.

(Finn is also technically correct that the Scheidler v NOW cases involved somewhat different groups -- for instance, Randall Terry settled in 1998, so he wasn't involved in the 2003 or 2006 decisions. A minor point. Finn is basically wrong and should admit it. He was correct to point out TMS was not in existence in the 1994 case.)

--Richard Monahan, your post of Monday, January 07, 2013 at 06:56 PM would have merit if the RCC refused to allow sterile or elderly people to marry. However, they do not. That inconsistency demonstrates they acknowledge that people who CANNOT have children CAN be married, and renders everything else as simple discrimination.

MCN, your ignorance about biology matches your ignorance in so many other subjects.

All mammals have homosexual individuals.

Numerous animals do not require two different genders to procreate (HINT: parthenogenesis).http://bioteaching.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/parthenogenesis/ Relevant quote: "In all, there are about 2000 species recorded to reproduce at least facultatively parthenogenetically under natural conditions and many more definitely exist, but remain unobserved/unsampled."

Natural law defined by the Church is merely an expression of what they want it to mean. Homosexuality is a natural occurrence in science/nature, and has not been defined as abnormal or a mentally defective condition in decades. Except by the Church.

Apparently the Catholic Church thinks that marriage is only about sex & having babies. I do remember Joseph Scheidler stating "When will these people reaize that sex is for procreation ONLY!", which of course is not true. I suggest that people read Neil Steinberg's letter to the Cardinal from Sunday's Sun Times (I'm not going to link it; you can find it easily). Sometimes he frustrates me, but I think he nails it this time. Also, Laura Washington's column yesterday in the same paper made some good points.

Lately some states have allowed first cousins to marry, provided they are past child-bearing age (eliminating any chance of genetic issues), which means that the state realised that they are NOT going to procreate, which to me is an admission that the state feels it is ok for non-procreating couples to marry. Maybe the church doesn't, but I doubt that they stop them.

There was a letter to the editor in the paper last week that mentioned that 2 saints (St Barnabas was one, if I remember correctly) were actually married (both men) - 7th or 8th century, I think, and that an early bishop had a rite (one or more) for same sex marriage. I don't remember the details & haven't had time to look that up yet, but I seem to remember hearing that before.

lexi (the Internet troll), I could not agree with you more. In fact, we saw the tragedy of having people as smart as you at the head of your preferred political party over the previous administration, and the tragic results (in terms of dead American civilians, dead American soldiers, ruined finances, foreclosures, and just about every metric). It was more than time for removing the crown from the jester's head and putting it back onto someone more capable.

If allowing gay marriage some how reopens the debate on polygamy (which I doubt), so be it. The "law of unintended consequences" is a very poor argument for infringing a civil right (again, agree to disagree).

Jakash, I'm not Catholic and would not think of infringing a person's right to live their life according to church teaching except the line has to be drawn at imposing those teaching on others.

The whole natural law argument seems like a giant black hole to me. If someone has surgery to make the parts fit, is it then ok. Are most infertility treatments a infringement of natural law.

Yeah, because the economy did so well at the end of Bush's administration in 2008. BTW, why didn't he hold a press conference to support the party's candidate for president? Why didn't he campaign to support the party's candidate for president? Why wasn't he invited to speak at the GOP convention?

BC, this is what? the third time you have posted your anti-Bush rant, look around you, Mr. Bush is no longer President, so that means no more "dead American civilians, dead American soldiers, ruined finances, foreclosures, and just about every metric" correct Xuuths?

I just read Neil Steinberg's letter to the Cardinal. After railing about and calling him a bigot, he ends his letter "With Respect". What a hypocritical, arrogant, and ignorant douche bag.

The Church is very aware of the type of tactics used by Steinberg and people on this board, including persons who call themselves Catholic yet reject Catholic teachings on homosexuality:

"One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination."

I leave it to the curious to find the cite.

For those Catholics who DO favor homosexual marriage, it would be useful to remember that you do not check your Faith at the voting booth. Just like the secular humanists who bring their faith in with them with they vote.

For the Ptolemaists who continue to deny clear RCC teaching on homosexual conduct, here is a reminder. From the Catechism:

"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Repeat: "Under no circumstances can they be approved."

You don't have to agree with this (unless you call yourself Catholic, in which case you don't have much choice except to leave), of course, but it's pretty damned clear, even for the most dim-witted and obtuse of you, and that's saying a lot.

He tries to say that if you don't accept everything the RCC teaches you are not a "true" catholic. As if. Seriously, how ignorant can one get.

Your 2357 example demonstrates that the teaching is clearly of human writing, so it can be ignored. It is demonstrably wrong (I've provided the evidence in this thread). So sad. All the harm that will happen between now and when nobody pays any attention whatsoever to the RCC -- like the followers of Ra or Thor.

Aw, lexi, that wasn't a terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, that was just a misunderstanding.

That terrorist attack might have been less devastating if army officers were permitted to wear sidearms while on base. Which they (at least back then). I've got an army pal who runs base security and this has driven him nuts.

Also, "terrorist attack" is defined as "a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims." Since this occurred on a military base, the intended targets were not civilians. (You may not know the difference, as your ignorance is legion!)

The Ft. Hood shooter is not being tried as a terrorist, but as a murderer and attempted murderer under the UCMJ, counselor. Perhaps you've forgotten the difference.

You should quit while you're behind.

All of which is off the thread's point, which is your bigoted agreement with the TMS's bigoted stance against same-sex marriage. You may be gay and still discriminate against other gays. (HINT: see "self-loathing")

Xuuths: The terrorist attack on 9/11 was GWB's fault?
So, the terrorist attack on 2/26/93 was WJC's fault?
The terrorist attack on 4/19/95 was WJC's fault?
The terrorist attack on 11/5/09 was BHO's fault?
GWB told you to purchase a home you could not afford?

Xuuths: do you really believe the stuff you write?
"religious aims" ? a man yelling "Allahu Akbar!" before shooting is a religious aim.
"intended targets were not civilians" ? what happens if a target just happens to be a civilian?

MCN,
I don't doubt that life is unfair. All one needs to do to verify that fact is to take a bit of a look around. I just find it depressing that religions founded in the name of somebody whose core message was "love thy neighbor" think that it's part of their mission to double down on the unfairness, rather than attempting to alleviate it, where possible.

Though I am a big fan of Steinberg and disagree with you strongly about the effectiveness of his column, I do agree with you that his putting that "With respect" at the end was off-putting and obnoxious.

ChrisH,
What I find odd about "Natural Law" is that placing a bit of latex over one's "part" is clearly and forever in contravention of it, yet something such as open heart surgery seems to make the grade when it comes to being "natural".

Xuuths, lexi,
Just so you're aware, I don't believe that MCN will accuse Xuuths of being a hypocrite, or anything else. It would appear that MCN and his cabal have formed a pact not to respond to anything posted by the Sheesh-meister, as I don't believe they cotton to his style, or his arguments. I somewhat agree about the style, Xuuths, but often find your arguments compelling.

Mick Taylor, like several others here, you seem confused about the difference between a terrorist attack and a mass murder. I supplied the definition, which you clearly did not understand. Perhaps you could find a nice elementary school teacher to explain it with vocabulary you will understand.

You and several others here making ridiculous comments is what is getting really old.

The pro-lifers' legal attack on NOW also yielded some great benefits from criminal defendants in Hobbs Act extortion cases. It is no longer a federal crime to interfere with another's property rights through threats and extortion. One of the Scheidler decisions made clear that the defendant must "obtain" the property, and in a conspiracy case, he must conspire to "obtain" or "acquire" it -- not just to interfere with it or its use.

Thanks, guys, you've just made it harder to prosecute extortionists in federal court. Big win you had there.

Jakash, providing evidence to support my statements is not a "style" -- but I suppose pointing out when others make errors, and not letting them (as "experts") off easy when they write foolish things, might be considered a "style." So be it. (An honest review of my writings would show that my responses evolved due to the nastiness of their reactions.)

Yes, I am aware the childish ones whose pwecious feewings have been hurt by the nasty Xuuths proving they were wong, have a pact. (Speaking of "sheesh!")

I couldn't care less if they don't like me pointing out their errors. Perhaps they could do the intellectually honest thing and ... but what am I saying, they have proven time and time again they have no interest in doing the intellectually honest thing -- but hypocritically demand others do it.

They do not do present themselves in very good light. The Internet laughs AT them, not with them.

So I present the accurate information to enlighten others, or make my comments for personal enjoyment. I do not rely on THEM for validation.

You've been making some very good points in this particular thread, and I'm pleased to see it is something you're willing to defend!

---Mick Taylor, as of 2012, the Department of Defense classifies the case as one of workplace violence. A spokesman for the Department stated,

"The Department of Defense is committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nadal Hassan and for that reason will not further characterize, at this time, the incident that occurred at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. Major Hassan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder, and 32 counts of attempted murder. As with all pending UCMJ matters, the accused is innocent until proven guilty."

GJO'L: First, it was NOW who sued the Pro-Lifers, not the other way around. Second, it was far, far better funded NOW, led by Sachnoff & Weaver and Fay Clayton's (Lowell Sachnoff's wife) firm, who lost the case, not the Pro-Lifers and their patchwork of lawyers. Third, I don't see how any practicing Catholic could have any objection to the way things turned out so I'm unclear why you are, assuming you are practicing anyway.

One of the defendants was sued because he took the remnants of aborted babies from abortion clinic garbage bins and buried them. That isn't my idea of an attack on the pro-abortion movement.

Regarding the Hobbs Act (if it's possible to bring the Act in conformity with the opinion), Congress can amend whenever it wishes.

@Jakash: Thanks for your remark about "With Respect". For me, Steinberg is the Charles Krauthammer of the left, except Krauthammer has 20 more IQ points and is more polite.

Regarding "doubling down" on homosexuals, I understand your position but I don't think you understand the RCC's, which isn't really different (to my knowledge) what a lot of other Christian faiths teach, e.g. the Orthodox, it's just that the RCC leads with its chin so it catches the criticism.

Anyway, there's a lot of reading on the subject, e.g. the Cathechism, papal letters, lots of books, etc. if you're interested. A lot of the stuff, as I've said, isn't on the Internet, so those who don't read books are at a disadvantage compared to those who do.

MCN, obviously you missed where GJO'L clearly explained why he had an "objection to the way things turned out" -- you really DO have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually, the reason the RCC "catches the criticism" is because of the problem with child-raping priests, and the cover-up of same by the supposedly moral bishops/cardinals/pope. Hardly the moral high ground. I believe the phrase would be "hypocritical, arrogant, and ignorant douche bag." It applies to them and their supporters -- because if you're not against child-raping priests and the cover-up, you're FOR it!

MCN, it doesn't matter who sued. Scheidler launched a war on the clinics. NOW sued. It didn't matter to me that the pro-lifers were the defendants or not. They were the ones who argued that the Hobbs Act didn't apply to them. Whoppee, they won. It was a 2002 decision. It applied to then-pending Hobbs Act proscutions then on appeal and it applies today. Congress hasn't done squat. It's easier for an extortionist to do his dirty business now because he can't be charged with a Section 1951 violation unless he obtained or acquired property, period, or he can be charged with Hobbs Act conspiracy for conspiring to do that. But if he does things to make the property owner's life miserable and effectively prevent the property owner from using or gaining the benefit of the property, he's in the clear. That is not how the Act was interpreted or applied before the 2002 Scheidler decision.

Or maybe Joe's lawyers shouldn't have raised the defense? Sounds like malpractice to me, especially since the Court bought it. Are you telling me YOU wouldn't have raised it?

Anyway, I've forgotten more about that case than you or anyone else on this board will ever know for reasons I will not disclose publicly but you can be damn sure they are compelling and if you want to know them I'll figure some way to tell you offline; otherwise, take it on faith.. The case was bullsh*t from the word go and NOW filed it to force Scheilder out of business because he was a pain in their a$$es. After the trial verdict, they went ahead and put a lien on his house.

They got what they deserved. Bad law and millions in expenses. TFB. Lousy baby-killers.

Sure as hell I would have raised it if I'd have been smart enough to think of it. It was the winner!

NOW filed to force him out of business because he was a PITA? I guess I don't disagree with that. I have no dog in that fight, but would you accept that NOW is as committed to its ideals as you are to yours? Maybe they viewed Scheidler's attack on the abortion clinics as an unlawful interference with constitutional rights. They think the right to an abortion is lawful in this country, and last I looked, it is. Scheidler used extralegal tactics, and I guess that did make him a PITA. Was it wrong for his opponents to set out to shut him down? Sounds to me like this was a good, old-fashioned dogfight. If you had a piece of it, I hope you had fun. I live for cases like that.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.